Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context not present in annotations: a per-call cost of $0.01 USDC via x402, which materially affects invocation decisions. It stops short of describing the response shape, but the core transformation outcome is stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences: purpose and examples first, then use cases, then cost. Nothing is redundant and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter transformation tool with no output schema, the description conveys what goes in and what comes out (a consistent standard country name) plus the payment requirement. Only the 'algorithm' variant behavior is left unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description's country examples add practical meaning to the 'country' input (loose variants accepted), but the optional 'algorithm' parameter is never mentioned and its variants/effect remain unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Country name standardization') and illustrates it with concrete input variations ('UK', 'Great Britain', 'uae') that make the transformation unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from the sibling 'interzoid_country_info' (info lookup) and 'interzoid_city_standard' (different resource), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives usage contexts ('data cleansing, address normalization, consistent reporting'), which implies when to reach for it. However, there is no guidance on when NOT to use it and no routing to the closest alternative (e.g., country_info for metadata vs. standardization), leaving the agent to infer boundaries from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.